Get Opportunity

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by specifying the required OAuth scope ('opportunities.readonly') and the exact REST endpoint, which gives useful access context beyond the annotations. However, it does not describe return shape, error behavior, or pagination, so the added behavioral context is limited.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence containing the HTTP method, path, and required scopes. No fluff or redundant content exists; every piece of information is useful for invoking the tool.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple one-parameter read-only operation with full annotation coverage, this description is mostly complete: it gives the endpoint and the required scope. It does not describe the response format or potential 404 behavior, but the absence of an output schema and the simplicity of the operation makes those omissions acceptable.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema describes the only parameter 'id' as 'Opportunity Id', which is self-explanatory. Schema coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to add much; it also doesn't add any semantics beyond what the schema already provides. The endpoint path '{id}' reinforces that the id is the path parameter.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Get') and the resource ('Opportunity') and includes the exact endpoint path '[GET /opportunities/{id}]', so an agent knows what the tool does. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like opportunities_search_opportunity, but the get-versus-search contrast is evident from the name.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as opportunities_search_opportunity or opportunities_search_opportunities_advanced. There is no mention of prerequisites, filtering, or when a search would be more appropriate.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.